$1B in Premium Rate Increases Rejected in Rate Reviews

Margaret Dick Tocknell, for HealthLeaders Media , September 12, 2012

"It's not a reflection of the economy," explained Gary Cohen, Director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. "The savings reflects the different in the increase they requested and the increase they received."
Some 44 states handle at least a portion of their own reviews, but HHS handles complete reviews in the individual and small group market for Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana and Wyoming.

Some states such as Montana don't have the legal authority to review health insurance rates while others lack the resources to mount an effective review.

HHS initially earmarked $250 million in grants to help states expand the scope and quality of their rate review processes. Among the key steps taken by several states is the hiring of actuaries to review rate increases.

The HHS report was released on the same day that the Kaiser Family Foundation announced the results of a separate, unrelated study that found that a family with employer-sponsored healthcare saw their premiums increase 4.5% in 2012.

While HHS officials declined to specifically address that report's findings. Cohen said he was heartened by the fact that the premium increase over the past year was the "lowest in decades."

Margaret Dick Tocknell is a reporter/editor with HealthLeaders Media.
1 | 2 | 3

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

2 comments on "$1B in Premium Rate Increases Rejected"

barium (9/12/2012 at 6:42 PM)
This is great! So, let's see...it would be like seeing prices rise at the pump and capping how much the gas station can charge, without addressing the cost of what he pays for gas from the truck. Let's not address the cost of care, just pummel insurers and if needed, make them take losses. Hello?

Jonathan L Lauer (9/12/2012 at 10:57 AM)
In the article, HHS Secretary Sebelius is quoted as saying, "the health insurance market is now 'working for consumers the way markets are supposed to work. Insurers are being forced to offer more competitive prices." On the contrary, if the insurance market really was "working for consumers", federal management of prices would not be necessary. Her comment makes it clear that she either does not understand the nature of free markets or does not want a free market. Genuine and comprehensive insurance market reforms could work, but we are moving in the opposite direction.




FREE e-Newsletters Join the Council Subscribe to HL magazine


100 Winners Circle Suite 300
Brentwood, TN 37027


About | Advertise | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Reprints/Permissions | Contact
© HealthLeaders Media 2016 a division of BLR All rights reserved.